Bombay High Court Quashes Reassessment Notice Against Russian Company in Nuclear Power Project Tax Dispute — Lack of Fresh Material and Mechanical Approval of Sanction Invalidates Reopening Under Section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961. Offshore Supply Contracts Not Taxable in India as Per Original Assessment; Reopening Based on Change of Opinion Not Permissible.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 13
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Atomstroyexport, a Russian joint stock company, challenged the jurisdiction of the Deputy Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) to reopen its assessment for the assessment year 2004-05 under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner was involved in constructing a nuclear power station at Kudankulam, Tamil Nadu, under agreements between the USSR and India, and had entered into offshore service and supply contracts with the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. (NPCIL). The petitioner filed its return of income on 31 March 2006, declaring a total income of Rs. 14.6 crores, offering tax on amounts received under offshore service contracts by applying Section 44BBB of the Act. The original assessment under Section 143(3) was completed on 28 December 2006, accepting the petitioner's claim. Subsequently, on 28 March 2011, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 148 seeking to reassess the income, alleging that income from offshore supply contracts had not been offered to tax. The petitioner objected, but the objection was dismissed by an order dated 20 October 2011. The petitioner then filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The main legal issues were whether the reopening was based on a mere change of opinion and whether the sanction under Section 151 was mechanically granted. The court analyzed the reasons recorded for reopening and found that they were identical to the issues already considered during the original assessment. The court held that there was no fresh tangible material to justify reopening, and the Assessing Officer had merely changed his opinion. Additionally, the sanction under Section 151 was granted without proper application of mind, as the Director merely recorded 'approved' without any independent consideration. The court quashed the impugned notice and order, allowing the petition.

Headnote

A) Income Tax - Reassessment - Section 147, 148, 151 Income Tax Act, 1961 - Reopening of assessment based on same material - The Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 148 to reassess income for AY 2004-05 on the ground that income from offshore supply contracts was not offered to tax. However, the original assessment had considered the same issue and accepted the assessee's claim. The court held that reopening based on the same material without any fresh tangible information amounts to a change of opinion and is not permissible under Section 147. (Paras 1-10)

B) Income Tax - Sanction for Reassessment - Section 151 Income Tax Act, 1961 - Mechanical approval - The sanction under Section 151 was granted by the Director of Income Tax without proper application of mind, as the reasons recorded were identical to those in the original assessment. The court held that such mechanical approval vitiates the reopening notice. (Paras 11-15)

C) Income Tax - Offshore Contracts - Section 44BBB Income Tax Act, 1961 - Applicability to nuclear power projects - The assessee, a Russian company, entered into offshore service and supply contracts for a nuclear power plant. The court noted that the assessee had offered income from service contracts under Section 44BBB, and the supply contracts were not taxable in India as per the terms. The reopening notice sought to tax supply contracts, but the court found no new material to justify reassessment. (Paras 2-5)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Assessing Officer validly assumed jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to reopen the assessment for AY 2004-05 based on the same material that was considered during the original assessment, and whether the sanction under Section 151 was validly granted.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The petition is allowed. The impugned notice dated 28/3/2011 under Section 148 and the impugned order dated 20/10/2011 are quashed and set aside.

Law Points

  • Reassessment under Section 147 requires tangible material and fresh information
  • not mere change of opinion
  • Mechanical approval under Section 151 invalidates notice
  • Section 44BBB applies to offshore service contracts for nuclear power plant
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2012:BHC-OS:9693-DB

WRIT PETITION NO.377 OF 2012

2012-08-01

S.J. Vazifdar, M.S. Sanklecha

2012:BHC-OS:9693-DB

Mr. S. E. Dastur, Sr. Counsel along with Mr. Nitesh Joshi and Mr. Atul K. Jasani i/by Mr. Atul K. Jasani for the Appellant; Mr. Tejveer Singh for the Respondents

Atomstroyexport a Joint Stock Company

The Deputy director of Income-tax (International Taxation)1(1), Mumbai; The Director of Income -tax (International Taxation) Mumbai; The Union of India

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging reassessment notice under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961

Remedy Sought

Quashing of notice dated 28/3/2011 under Section 148 and order dated 20/10/2011 dismissing objections

Filing Reason

Assessing Officer sought to reopen assessment for AY 2004-05 on ground that income from offshore supply contracts was not offered to tax, despite same issue being considered in original assessment

Previous Decisions

Original assessment under Section 143(3) completed on 28/12/2006 accepting petitioner's return; objections to reopening dismissed by order dated 20/10/2011

Issues

Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147 based on the same material as considered in original assessment amounts to a change of opinion and is invalid. Whether the sanction under Section 151 was mechanically granted without application of mind.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the reopening was based on a mere change of opinion as the same issue was considered during original assessment and no fresh tangible material existed. Respondents argued that the income from offshore supply contracts was not offered to tax and therefore reassessment was justified.

Ratio Decidendi

Reassessment under Section 147 cannot be based on a mere change of opinion; there must be fresh tangible material to justify reopening. Sanction under Section 151 requires proper application of mind and cannot be granted mechanically.

Judgment Excerpts

By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the challenge is to the assumption of jurisdiction by the Deputy Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) under Section 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing officer has assumed jurisdiction by issuing a notice dated 28/3/2011 under Section 148 of the Act seeking to reassess the petitioner's income for assessment year 2004-05. The court held that reopening based on the same material without any fresh tangible information amounts to a change of opinion and is not permissible under Section 147.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed return of income on 31/3/2006 for AY 2004-05. Original assessment under Section 143(3) completed on 28/12/2006. Notice under Section 148 issued on 28/3/2011. Petitioner filed objections which were dismissed by order dated 20/10/2011. Petitioner then filed Writ Petition No.377 of 2012 under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Acts & Sections

  • Income Tax Act, 1961: Section 147, Section 148, Section 151, Section 44BBB, Section 143(3)
  • Constitution of India: Article 226
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Reassessment Notice Against Russian Company in Nuclear Power Project Tax Dispute — Lack of Fresh Material and Mechanical Approval of Sanction Invalidates Reopening Under Section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961. Offshore Supply...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Rajasthan High Court's Appeal Against Reinstatement of Probationary Judicial Officer. Termination of Probationer Upheld as Non-Stigmatic Administrative Decision Based on Suitability Assessment.